Blueprint

A SMARTER BLUEPRINT FOR BETTER BEGINNINGS: Why Bushes Budget Proposal Is Wrong For America By David Tibergien George W. Bush’s budget proposal has great potential of leaving the United States in ruins. The success of Bush’s tax cuts and spending proposals depends upon a yet non-existent source of funds. Bush’s tax plan unreasonably benefits the wealthy; he could spend less money on his tax cut while stimulating the economy more. George W. Bush proposes a 1.6 Trillion-dollar tax cut for the American taxpayers. He proposes that such a tax cut will work without reducing the efficiency and strength of entitlements and other beneficial programs. Bush also says that such squandering of the surplus (which was generated under the Clinton administration) will not result in a budget deficit. George W. Bush is wrong. Bush basis his tax cut on a surplus of 5.6 Trillion Dollars, but he is considering a surplus that includes Social Security and Medicare savings. The Congressional Budget Office says that the non-entitlement surplus (i.e. the real surplus) is about 1.8 trillion. This mean’s that if Bush spends 1.6 Trillion dollars on his tax cut there is a mere 200 Billion dollars left; certainly not enough to cover the 2.6 Trillion he proposes to put toward social security. Nor is there enough money to support the 1.4 Trillion dollars on which he intends to keep as a contingency reserve (i.e. a basically a budget safety net.) 200 Billion dollars is not enough to make a valiant effort in paying down either the national debt or sound investments in education. It makes saving Social Security and Medicare virtually impossible, and after these economic catastrophes reforms in health care and environmental policy will hardly be an issue. In order to support his spending for tax cuts, saving Social Security, and the economic safety net, Bush would have to dip into entitlement reserves. In essence, George W. Bush’s plan would take money out of Social Security, and then spend it on saving Social Security. This is like feeding a starving man his own heart to keep him from dyeing of starvation. Bush’s proclamations that his budget exercises "fiscal responsibility" are false, in reality, it’s contains perhaps the most fiscally irresponsible proposals ever made by a US President. Bush’s tax plan depends on accurate budget surplus projections that attempt to project how much surpluses will be every year for ten years. These projections have seldom proven reliable or accurate. They are estimated by current and short term conditions of the economy, that is to say we might have a 1.8 Trillion dollar surplus if factors such as high economic growth, and low unemployment, and low inflation remain the same. The vitality of Bush’s plan depends on economic growth being 3.3 percent next year, and 3.1 percent throughout the rest of the decade, however, the Commerce Department reported that current economic growth is 1.1 percent, exactly 1/3 of what Bush’s plan needs to pass, according to Bush himself. As you may know, Bush is predicting an economic slow down, in fact, after Former Vice President Al Gore’s concession, and before his inauguration, Bush went on the record as saying that the economy was slowing and that we may be heading for a recession. Some say that Bush was trying to scare the public into accepting his tax cut that was designed to appease his wealthy supporters, certainly that notion is open to speculation. Never the less, if George W. Bush is correct on this potential slow down, which he seems to be, the projected surpluses over the next 10 years will be lower, likely much lower than projected. Alas Bush’s budget proposal is about as safe as the wax wings of Icarus. One important thing President Bush should do is recognize the voting majority. It is well known that the G.W. Bush Presidency was made possible by a loop-hole in democracy, thus more voters cast their ballots for Al Gore’s budget plan (or against Bush’s.) Perhaps the first non-democratically elected president since Rutherford B Hayes in 1877 would like to take a change of pace and take the 1.8 Trillion dollar surplus to Las Vegas so he can bet it on 13 Red at the roulette table at the Lady Luck Casino. George W. Bush could spend less on tax cuts while actually stimulating the economy more. Initially, the proposed tax cut, taken at face value, may sound favorable to many, but when looked at closer, you will find that it is truly favorable only to To 1 percent of all American’s, and thus unfavorable to the other 99%. Bush’s tax cut spends more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of all American’s than he does on all of his new spending proposals for health care, prescription drugs, education and national defense combined. Bush and other Republicans like to say that the surplus isn’t the government’s money, that it is the people’s money. Indeed George W. Bush is correct, truly it is the people’s money, which is precisely why 50% of it should not be given to those of the top 1 percent income-earning bracket. Whether or not it is fair to redistribute the surplus in the form of taxation and tax relief is certainly a judgement call. But what is not a judgement call is that large tax cuts for the wealthy is simply a throw back to the days of the failed ideology of trickle-down economics, also known as Reaganomics. The trickle-down effect leaves lower and middle-income families with just that, a trickle. Large corporations and the wealthy benefited a great deal from a similar tax cut done by former President Reagan. The trickle-down effect in the 1980’s resulted astounding budget deficits and increased debt. In fact, under the Regan/Bush Senior years the national debt quadrupled. Between the George Washington administration and the Jimmy Cater Administration, 1 Trillion dollars of debt was accumulated, and in 12 years under Reagan and Bush Senior, the national debt had reached 4 trillion dollars. This is hardly an effect we as a nation want to emulate. The top 1% of all earning American’s make at least $319,000 a year, and an average of $915,000 a year, and many of them make much much more; Bush proposes to give this top 1% an average of $44,757. For these people there generally isn’t a better car they can drive nor a better meal they can eat; there isn’t a better school they can send their children to, or nicer clothing they can wear. Alas, the $44,757 given to the wealthy will likely not be spent, and thus will not create the demand for additional good and services, which will not create jobs to fulfil that demand, thus not resulting in economic prosperity as trickle-down economics it’s supporters suggest it would do. In fact, it is unlikely to get even a trickle from such tax cuts. It can be concluded that George W. Bush’s budget plan is fiscally irresponsible while unfairly benefiting the wealthy. Truly it is a well intentioned but ill conceived plan, fore it is a proposal that endangers our nation that also lacks a plan to use the national resources of the United States more efficiently.Hint: This Isn't Even A Poem Written February 15th, 2001 © on Dec 27 2001 01:37 AM PST    10 • 0 • 16